Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout100301 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if yqu need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to e~nsure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE OCTOBER 3, 2001 - 6:( P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Roll Call: Chairman Chiniaeff Guerriero, Mathewson, Olha.~ Next in Order: Resolution: No. 2001-035 , Telesio and Chairman Chiniaeff PUBLIC COMMENTS of the A total of 15 minutes is provided so members public may address the Commission on items that are listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about ~n item no..._~t on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to S~eak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no d~scusslon of these tems unless Members of the Planning Commission request ~ecific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1 Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of October 3, 2001 R:\PLANCOMMV~gendas~O01\10-03-01 .doc 1 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of August 15, 2001 COMMISSION BUSINESS Appointment of Commissioner to the Rancho Highlands Ad .Hoc Committee. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Plam,~ing Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or ~n opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge ~any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to tl~e Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. 3 Planninq Application No. PA01-0465 (Findinq of Substantial Conformance) to modify thc, exterior desiqn of the previously approved church buildir~.q (Plannin.q Application PA99-0124) Curtis H. Lyon/Christ the Vine Lutheran Church - Rolfe Preisendanz, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION for Planning Application 3.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption No. PA01-0465 pursuant to Section 15301 of tt*ie California Environmental Quality Act; 3.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANI~IING APPLICATION NO. 01-0465, A FINDING OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE IDESIGN OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CHURCH BUILDING (PLANNING APPLICATION PA99-0124) LOCATED ONI THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE NORTH GENERAL KEARNEY ROAD AND WEST OF THE PROPOSED PARK SITE WITHIN PLANNING AREA 2 OF THE CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 921-009-075. Planninq Application No. PA01-0404 (Findinq of Substant al Conformance) to modify thc, pre_viously approved exterior colors and awning desiqn o~ the existinq Palomar Villaq~, Shoppinq Center - Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner R:\PLANCOMM',Agendas~2001\10-03-01 .doc 2 RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Applicati n No. PA01-0404 pursuant to Section 15301 of the Ca ~forn~a Enwronmenta Qua ~ty Act. 4.2 Adopt a Resolution Entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0404, A FINDING OF SUBSTANT!AL CONFORMANCE WITH THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED EXTERIOR COLORS AND AWNING DESIGN OF THE EXISTING PALOMAR SHOPPING CENTER (PLOT PLAN NO. 1~0739), PARCEL 4, 9, 10, 11, 15 AND 16 OF PARCEL MAP ~23472, GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 921-700-004, 009, 010, 011,615 AND 016. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next Regular Meeting: October 17, 2001, Council Ct Temecula, CA 92590 R:\PLANCOMM',Agendas~001\10-03-01 .doc 3 ambers 43200 Business Park Drive MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMEC~JLA PLANNING COMMISSli~N AUGUST 15, 2001 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened m a regular meeting at 6:03 P.M., on Wednesday August 15, 2001, in the City Council ~hambers of Temecula City Hall, .43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. :ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissior er Mathewson. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT cALENDAR 1 A,qenda RECOMMENDATION: Commissioners Mathewison, Olhasso, Chairman Chiniaeff. Commissioner Guerriero. Deputy City Manager Tho~ nhill, Director of Planning Ubno ;ke, Assistant C~ty Attorney Cu,rley, Deputy Director of Public '~/orks Parks, Senior PJanner Hogan, ~ Project Planner McCoy, ~ Project Planner Naaseh, and Minute Clerk Hansen. 1.1 Approve the Agenda of August 15, 2001. Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of June 20, 2001. 2.2 Approve the Minutes of June 27, 2001. R: PlanComm/m~nutes/081501 1 Telesio, and MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1- 2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner OIl~asso and voice vote reflected approval with: the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who was absent and Commissioner ~l'elesio who abstained with respect to Item No. 2. COMMISSlON, BUSINESS 3 Director's Hearinq Update RECOMMENDATION 3.1 Receive and File. The Planning Commission received and filed the Direct~l,r's Hearing Update. 4 Planninq Application No. 01-0082 (MissiOn Oak's Resolution Approval) Michael McCoy, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. Z 01-030 ,A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-0082 (CONDITIONAL USE pERMITi TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 2,200 SQUARE FOOT BANK BUILDING ~VVITH AN ATM DRIVE-THROUGH ON A 0 17 ACRE PAD SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE EXISTINGI VAIL RANCH CENTER COMMERCIAL CENTER ON ~HE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND REDH,AWK PARKWAY KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 96t-080-004. For information'al purposes, Chairman Chiniaeff noted th~at this item was solely a resolution coming back to the Planning Commission for review, nobng that this project had been previously approved. P MOTION: Comrmissioner Mathewson to adopt lanning ~Commission Resolution No. 2001-030. The motion was seconded by Commissioner ~elesio and voice vote reflected approval with tl~e exception of Commissioner Guerriero who was absent. R: PlanComm/minutes/081501 2 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5 Planninq Application No. PA-01-0120 {Developmenl Dave Hoqan, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION 5.1 Adopt a Resolution Entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO, 2( Code Amendments) 01-031 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNt;IL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTEI~S 8 AND 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO MAKE TYPOGRAPHICAL AND OTHER MINdR CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE". Senior Planner Hogan presented the staff report (per agenda material), outlining the proposed modifications to the City's Development Code! soliciting the Planning Commission's comments and recommendations for forwarding to the City Council. Discussion ensued reqardin~l the proposed modifications to the City's Development Code with respect to Non-Profit Clubs and LodRe Me6tinR Halls, as follows: Add ' C M th ' S Ipi H t dth t t ressing ommissioner a ewsons queries, enior~ anner ogan no e a i was staff's intent for these uses to be permitted via a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) which would require case-by-case review by the Planning Commission; for Chairman Chiniaeff, confirmed that these uses would not be servir~g alcohol, additionally confirming that at th~s bme these particular uses are allqwed ~n Commercial and Industrial Zones, as well as in the Medium and High Density Zones; noted that staff opined that permitting these particular uses via a CUP i~ the Very Low (VL), Low (L-1 and L-2), and Low Medium (LM) residentia zones was Worthy of the P ann ng Commission s cons~derabon, nobng that there ~s a shortage of s~tes available as per the existing permitted zdnes. Ch Ch ff t dh t d t d I ' th rt I L airman iniae no e is repi a ion regar lng paci,ng ese pa icu ar uses in ow Density residential areas (i.e., in the Meadowview Development). In response, Senior Planner Hogan noted that while concurring that these uses would not be appropriate in established tract housing areas, that there could be other properties in the lower density zones that might be appropriate. Discussion ensued reqardinq the proposed modifications to the City's Development Code with respect to Political Siqnaqe,' as follows: Sen or Panner Hogan c ar f ed that staff was propos ng to estab sh a min mum separabon d~stance between all pohbcai s~gns; for Commissioner Mathewson, confirmed that the rationale for the three feet required d~stance was to address the massing issues of the signage; and for Commissioner Teles~o, confirmed that there was no limit at this time regulating the number of signs that a candidate co~ lid place throughout the community. For Commissioner Telesio, Assistant City Attorney Curl~ ~y advised that limiting the number of signs would have to be explored by staff since issues related to political signage could affect free speech rights. Providing clarification, Senior Planner Hogan reiterated that the massing of signs was being addressed, relaying that if the number of signs cremates a negative impact in the future, staff would further investigate regulating this mat!er; and confirmed, for Commissioner Tele~sio,.that if it was the Planning Commission's desire, political signage could be separated by more than three feet, and that staff could further explore the issue. Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that within the bread scope of parameters with respect to free speech matters, ~t was the ~ntent to prow~te the greatest flex~bd~ty regarding commun~cabon w~thout duly restncbng the message, nobng that s~ze restncbons have been permitted, and that the 36-~nch d~stance requirement was defensible. PI For Commissioner Telesio, Senior anner Hogan confirmed that the proposed policy's stated that the winner of a primary could leaveI signage up until ten days after language the regular eleCtion, whereas the other individuals in theI' race would be required to remove their political signage fourteen days after the primary election; noted that f the signs were not removed by the deadline dates that Cod~ Enforcement would be contacted and would subsequently direct the campaigning personnel to remove the signs; and advised that if the signs were still not removed the signs would be removed by Code Enforcement Officers. Commissioner Telesio recommended that if the signs w,ere not removed by the deadline date that Code Enforcement remove the signage, charging the campaigns for this serv ce and clarified that ~t was h~s op~n~on that if the C~ty staff removes the s~gns that it should not be done at City expense. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that the proposed language regulating the period of bme designated for campaign signage to be displayed was typical. Discussion ensued regardinq the proposed modifications to the City's Development Code with respect to a Second Dwelling Unit, as follows: For Commissioner Telesio, Senior Planner Hogan noted, that the minimum size lot permitted for adding a second dwelling unit larger than 1~2001 square feet was one acre, relaying that for sites over an acre, the second unit could be up to seventy-five percent (75 ~/,,) of the ma~n structure, and not more than 2,000 sqluare feet, noting that setbacks and lot coverage requirements would have to be met; and relayed that the second structure could be either attached or non-attached. R; PlanOomm/minules/081501 Discussion ensued re,qardinq the proposed modifications to the City's Development Code with respect to Compact Spaces, as follows: In light of previously expressed Planning Commission concern, Senior Planner Hogan advised that staff was proposing that in lieu of the thirty percent (30%) of allowable compact parking spaces, that there would be a maximum of fifteen percent (15%) allowable. I Based on his opinion, and the opinion expressed by resi,dents at the Planning Commission and Public/Traffic Safety Commission meetings, Commissioner Telesio recommended that all compact parking spaces be prohibited. Discussion ensued re,qardin,q the proposed modifications to the City's Development Code with respect to Temporary Si.qna.qe, as follows: For Commissioner Mathewson, Senior Planner Hogan oted that the proposed language referenced requirements for attached temporary signage; relayed that detached temporary s gns are solely permitted twice a year whereas the attached s~gns were 90-dayall°Wedperiod.f°ur times; and confirmed that the attached signage could be up for a maximum Discussion ensued reqardinq the proposed modifications to the City's Development Code with respect to Minimum Lot Area, as follows: For Chairman Chiniaeff, Senior Planner Hogan confirm( that the lot area was being calculated with the exclusion of the public street area, a~ ~d large easements (i.e., the large MWD aqueducts.) At this time the Planninq Commission heard public comments reqardinq the proposed modifications to the City's Development Code, as follow§: The following individuals spoke as proponents of the pro]posed modifications to the Development Code with respect to Non-Profit Clubs and Lodge Meeting Halls: r~ Mr. Paul Gonzalez 41820 Marwood Circle r~ Mr. Vincent Peterbaugh 27740 Jefferson Avenue The above-mentioned individuals were proponents of th proposed modifications to the Developmeni Code With respect to Non-Profit Clubs an~d Lodge Meeting Halls for the following reasons: The revision would grant the flexibility needed. Requested that the amendment also include language to allow the sale of alcohol to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. ¢ The Elks Club has purchased property in a Iow-density area. The ~nd~wduals who belong to these organ~zabons ale c~bzens ~n th~s community. / For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Gonzales relayed that the property recently purchased by the Temecula Valley Elks was zoned VL; and for Commissioner Telesio, reiterated that it would be the Elks' desire that there wouid be an opportunity for alcohol to be served at these uses. R: Pla n Comrn/min ut es/081501 5 The following individuals spoke in opposition to the prol: Development Code with respect to Non-Profit Clubs a~ [] Mr. Ronald Knowles Mr. Richard Harrison Ms. Karen Bales [] Mr. Mark A. Foley [] Ms. Sandy Frink [] Mr. Briscoe Johnston Mr. Joe Turgeon 39675 Cantrell 40025 Walcott Lane 39340 Jesse 31985 Calle Chapos 31850 Calle Saragoza 40055 Walcott Lane Cantrell Road osed modifications to the ~d Lodge Meeting Halls: The above-mentioned individuals were in opposition to the proposed modifications to the Development Code with respect to Non-Profit Clubs and Lodge Meeting Halls for the following reasons: ¢ The traffic and noise impacts could not be mitigated.I ,' The hours of operation and activitieS of these uses are not appropriate for neighborhoods. ~ Questioned why the Elks Club would purchase property not zoned for these types of uses. · , Opined that it was not equitable to change the allow d uses in a zone after residents have purchased property with the understanding that these uses would not be permitted. J z The allowance of these uses in residential areas would decrease the quality of life for the residents. ,' Allowing these types uses in th ' e proposea zones wo,uld lower the property values. · ~The safety of children in these residential areas would be jeopardized. ~' Relayed fear that if these uses were permitted at thi~ time subject to not selling alcohol that subsequently there would be allowance for the uses to serve alcohol. ~ Advised that if a use could buy property and subsequently get the zoning allowances changed that it would be his expectation that he coulU change the allowable uses for his property. Mr. John Lynn, 32237 Placer Belair, spoke regarding the proposed modifications to the Development Code with respect to Compact Car Parkir{g Spaces, relaying the following: that it was his desire to eliminate all compact parking spaces in the City, that the elimination of such would reduce the damage cause8 to vehicles, that compact spaces are not only utilized for compact cars; and recom~mended that if compact parking spaces continue to be permitted that there be a requirement for oversized spaces as well.' d The Planning Commission considered each proposed amen ment separately, ultimately relayinf:l the followinq recommendations: / > With respect to the proposed revisions to the Development Code regarding Non- Profit Clubs and Lodge Meeting Halls, it was the P~lanning Commission's recommendation that this portion of the Development Code not be modified, leaving the existing language. R: PlaaComm/minutes/081501 6 > W~threS ecttothe ro osedrewsonstoth D I ...... · p p p ' i e eveqpment Cooe regaroing ~otitica~ S gnage, t was the Planning Commission s recommendabon that staff br ng th s item back to the Planning Commission at a future meebng w~th addlbonal information from Assistant City Attorney Curley. In response, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed thatihe would bring back to the Planning Commission additional data regarding the noted items of question (i.e., setting limitations on the number of signs, increasing the m~n~mum d~stance requirements, charging for the removal of signs if deadline dates are not met); and advised, for Commissioner Mathewson, that the removal of signs co~ld be more easily regulated than the timing allowed for the placement of signs. > ~Nith respect to the proposed revisions to the Development Code regarding Second Dwelling Unit, it was the Planning Commission s recommendat'on that staff bring this item back with additional data from Assistant City Attorney Curley. Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that there are Statej Statutes addressing granny fiats, as well as second units, noting the legislature in favor of the addition of a second unit; and for Commissioner Telesio, relayed that a ~lranny fiat is a unit limited to individuals who are 62 years of age or older· I Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the main concern was th; size of the second unit, and whether it was an attached or detached unit. Commissioner Mathewson queried why elderly individualls would want the larger units, noting the proposed allowable increase in the size of th~ second unit. > With respect to the proposed revisions to the Development Code regarding Compact Parking Spaces, it was the Planning Commission's recommendation that all compact parking spaces be prohibited. D I > With respect to the proposed revisions to the eve opment Code regarding Courtesy Curbs, it was the Planning Commission's recommendation to concur with staff's recommended revision. D I > With respect to the proposed revisions to the eve opment Code regarding Temporary Signage, it was the Planning Commissi6n's recommendation to concur with staff's recommended revision, additionally recommending that language be added to restrict a temporary sign from being up for 90 consecutive days between the 3rd and 4th quarter. ~ > With respect to the proposed revisions to the Develo]pment Code regarding Residential Densities, it was the Planmng Commission s recommendat on to concur with staff's recommended revision. > With respect to the proposed revisions to the Development Code regarding Minimum Lot Area, ~t was the Planmng Commission s recommendation to concur with staff's recommended revision, addlt~ona y d~rectmg staff to clarify the term easements. R: PlanComm/minu[es/08150 ~ 7 With respect to the proposed revisions to the Development Code regarding Right-of- Way Plant ng, t was the Plann ng Comm ss on s recommendation to concur wth staff's recommended revision. > With respect to the proposed revisions to the Devel~pment Code, regarding Commercial Building Offsets, it was the Planning Commission s recommendation to concur with staff's recommended revision, additi¢ nally recommending that language be added to restrict the setback from bein~ more than fifty feet (50'.) > .With respect to the proposed revisions to the Devel~ ~ment Code regarding Lot Coverage, it was the Planning Commission's recom'mendation to concur with staff's recommended revision. ~ / ~OTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to close the lublic hearing, and to ~nd to the City Council that the Development Code be amended per the Planning Commission's recommendations (denoted in the bullets on pages 6-8 of the minutes.) The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who was absent. It was noted that the meeting recessed at 7:33 P.M., reconvening at 7:40 P.M. 6 Roripaugh Ranch Saied Naaseh, Prelect Planner RECOMMENDATION 6.1 Review and Provide Direction to Staff Staff presents the proiect plan, as follows: Via overheads, Project Planner Naaseh presented the s!aff report; noted that while the efforts of staff and the applicant have been arduous, that due to the time constraints, the complexity of the issues, and the scale of the project, th'~t the documents for this project have not been refined to a point of being internally consistent; advised that the purpose of this presentation was to receive input and direction from the Planning Commission regarding a number of issues; and initially provided a br~ad overview of the project, highlighting the Specific Plan, the proposed 1721 residential units, the Village Core, the two park sites, and the Open Space· Project Planner Naaseh specified the two school sites, ~dvising that the mitigation measures in the EIR require the applicant to obtain input from the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) prior to approval of the Specific Plain due to Planning Area No. 6 (which is the location of the elementary school site) ' ' ' ' ' being w~th~n two mdes of French Valley Airport, noting that on August 2nd the ALUC took action, discouraging a school use in this planning area; relayed that while previously the State Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division had approved the s~chool site, that after receiving data regarding the ALUC's disapproval, there was a desire to further investigate the site, potentially seeking alternate sites; advised that a representabve from the School District was present to answer any questions of the Planning Cdmmission; and requested input from the Commission regarding this issue. R: Pla n CornrlVrnin ut es/081501 8 Project Planner Naaseh specified the forty-foot (40') lar~ :lscape strip on the south side of Murrieta Hot Springs Road; and updated the P ann ng C, ommission regarding discussions with the property owner of this property, noting that this area will be landscaped in the spring. , With respect to the Land Use Plan, Project Planner Naa~eh provided an overview of the proposal, noting that to the south and east are 1-acre lots gradually transitioning into 10,000 and 20,000 square foot lots, and then to 5,000 a~d 6,000 square foot lots; relayed that previously the proposal was for 2.5 acre Iot~ to the east, and 20,000 square oot lots to the south; adwsed that the applicant s proposal ~s co.n,s~stent with the Subcommittee's direction, noting the inclusion of a thirtylfoot (30) landscaped strip required by the Subcommittee which will also serve as a fire/safety zone, and a trail; with respect to Planning Area No. 28, noted that the Subcommittee recommended the elimination of the proposed Qffice area, which has beeniremoved; relayed that the applicant has not complied with the Subcommittee's recommendation with respect to the south of the panhandle where the request was for 25-30 feet of additional open space, for buffering purposes advised that additionally the Subcommittee directed the applicant to change the designation for Plann ng Area No. 12 from H~gh Density Apartments to Medium Density Residential, and to change the designation of Planning Area No. 27 from Medium Density Residential to a lower dens ty res~denbal (s~ngle-famdy dwelhngs); and requested the Planning Commission's input regarding the buffering issues and the areas in which the applicant has not complied with the Subcomm tree's recommendations. I With respect to the Design Guidelines, Project Planner ~aaseh advised that staff's recommendations regarding architectural forward elements, the treatment of the front of the buildings, garages, the rear and side elevabons, andI the treatment of the corner lots have not been incorporated, which is a major concern for staff; relayed that no Specific DeSign Guidelines have been proposed for the H~gh Density or Medium Density products; noted that while the panhandle area is proposed with neo-traditional design standards, the Design Guidelines do not contain standards for this type of development; and requested input from the Planning Commission regarding the Design Guidelines. / Project Planner Naaseh relayed the disagreements between staff and the applicant regarding the trails which staff advised should be propos~ed in the Specific Plan, advising that TCSD staff was available for questions of the Planning Commission and requested the Planning Commission for input regarding this matter. Specifying alternate issues of concern, Project Planner Naaseh noted the lack of landscaped Development Zones (LDZs) along Nicolas R~ad, the Loop Road, and portions of Murrieta Hot Springs Road; relayed the applicant's proposed sidewalks on residential streets separated by a parkway which staff re'commended to be maintained (both the parkway and the sidewalk) by the HOA, the lack of additional specific public transit improvements within the Specific Plan (other thanI a Park and Ride Facility required by the EIR), and the lack of any private recreational facilities; and requested the Planning Commission for input. Additionally, Project Planner Naaseh requested the Planning Commission to provide ecommendat~ons regard ng the Development Agreement (DA) Dea Points. R: PlanComm/minutes1081501 9 With respect to the EIR Mitigation Measures, Project Planner Naaseh noted that various measures would be reqUired to be compl~ed w~th Prior tq Approval of the Tentative Maps, and Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits; and siting specific areas of concern, relayed that staff is unsure of the manner in which various Mitigation Measures would be complied with. Project Planner Naaseh provided an overview of the concerns voiced by neighbors (as outlined on page 3 of the staff report); and requested th~ Planning Commission for input. Addressing the questions of the Planning Commission, for Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Naaseh noted that w~th respect to the ~mprovements to Nicolas Road (to a 4-lane road w~th s~dewalks) requested by the residents, that the applicant s response has been that the traffic study only requires two lanes; w~th respect to the Final EIR which the Planning Commission received ton,ght, adwsgd that the document was from confirming that distributed to the various agencies without final approvaI City staff, the EIR (without final staff approval) was sent out for the 45-day review period; provided an overview of the supplemental agenda material distrib~uted, to the Planning Commission inclusive of a letter from the School District outlining its position regarding the school sites, and a ternate etters rece ved by staff tqday and during the past week; for Commissioner Telesio, reiterated that the forty foot (40') strip on the south side of I ' Murrieta Hot Springs Road would be landscaped by that, particular property owner; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that the Final EIR Land Use Plan was different than the Land Use Plan in the Specific Plan, specifying the d~fferenbals, Director of Planning Ubnoske adding that the location of the school was still an unresolved issue at this point. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified for Chairman Ch~n~aeff that ~t was staff's recommendation that if the sidewalks were separated with parkways this area would need to be maintained by the HOA. For Commissioner Mathewson Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that if there was a substanbal deviation between the Land Use Plan represented ~n the F~nal EIR and the current proposed Land Use Plan then ~t could be argued that the document does not comply with CEQA due to the tack of analysis for the project presented, noting that if the deviations are not substanbal and the scope of ~mpacts are found to be the same, the document may not require re-clrculabon, clanfy~ng that merely changing the document does not requ re re-c rculabon; and adwsed that once staff has analyzed the differences, a decision would be made regarding whether, or not, to ,'e-circulate the revised document· ' The School District's concerns were relayed, as follows: Addressing the letter from the School District, Mr. Dave Gallaher, representing Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD), noted that the pioposed project of 1721 residential units would create the need for space for app,roximately 1300 students (700 elementary grade level, and 600 in the upper grade leve!s), relaying the plans for a 12- acre elementary school site and a 20-acre middle school site within the project; reiterated the findings of the ALUC that due to being within a 2-mile radius of the airport, the elementary school site was a discouraged use, additionally reiterating the previous approval of the State Department of Transportation, D~ws~on of Aeronauhcs of the site; noted that the site could be further conditioned; relayed :hat an approval may be possible if an alternate site is not feasible; provided the ationale for the panhandle site being the preferred location (per the School District's opinion, as well as the applicant's); adwsed that due to the unknown factors regarding the future approval of the school s~te, ~t ~s the School D~stnct s desire that ~f the school s~te ~s relocated that there ~s assurance that an alternate site of the same size would be designaied to not be assessed in the CFD, and w~thout res~denhal density; noted that the School D~stnct ~s wdhng to work w~th the City and the applicant; for Chairman Chiniaeff, advisbd that an alternate site should be determined at this time, noting that most likely a formal State approval will not be received sooner than 3-6 months; and confirmed that th~ area east of Butterfield Stage Road was outside of the 2-mile radius of the airport. The applicant presented the proposed proiect, as follows: Via overheads, Mr. Kevin Everett, representing the applicant, provided an overview of the project, specifying the 809.7 acres of Open Space (qver 30 Yo of the project), the $2.2 million contribution for the Johnson Ranch, the road system estimated at $44 million to connect the Eastern Bypass from Rancho Cahforn~a Road to Murneta Hot Spnngs Road, not ng that the bypass wou d be constructed through the~ project to Butterfleld Stage Road, and to the edge of the property, relaying that from~ this point it would traverse south to Rancho California Road, noting the three connections at La Serena Way, Calle Chapos, and Nicolas Road that operate the bypass, the ~3.6 acres for park sites, the commercial sites totaling 21.3 acres, a 1.5 acre Fire Station site, the 5-acre church site, and the balance of the project which has a residential d~nsity of 2.1 units per acre which would range in size from 5 000-40 000 square foot lots, ~ourtyard townhomes, and Medium and High Density apartments; and specified the two major drainage courses traversing through the property which would encompass $10 million of improvements (noting that he had included this cost in the improvement figures for the road system.) Mr. Everett advised of the need for a CFD in order to cor~struct the previously-mentioned infrastructure, noting that the land uses need to be determined for each segment of the property in order to determine the bonding capacity; and! advised that if the elementary school site is relocated, it would affect the bonding capacity for the CFD which was a concern for the applicant. ~ With respect to buffering, Mr. Everett noted the additional areas developed for this purpose, highlighting the 1-acre lots located on the eastern and southern area, a 30-foot fuel break with a 15-foot horse trail, the core area, the e~sement system w~th an MWD right-of-way for water, and the slope easement; and clarified that the project has been buffered circumferentially. As the presentation conhnued, Commissioner Teles~o requested Mr. Everett to provide the apphcant s rationale for not meeting the recommendat ons of the Subcommittee regarding the Land Use issues. ~ Per supplemental agenda material, Mr. Everett noted the 40 major issues of disagreement between staff and the applicant with respect to the project; adwsed that the DA, the CFD, and alternate portions of the project coluld move forward when these issues have been addressed, clarifying that 20 of the 40 litems were of crt ca concern; relayed the enws~oned project for approximately 4,000 residents served wa a system of b ke trads through the entire project, not~ng the resistance to the Subcommittee s recommendation to place a horse trail system through the middle of the project, advising that there was no opposition to horse trails being located on the outside, specifying the R: PtanComrn/rr~nute~081501 11 tw h h I I I o areas w ic wou d not be suitab e for horse trails (i.e., a trail up Nicolas Road with a horse bridge constructed under Butterfield Stage Road !hrough the hab tat area, or a trail up the creek under Butter[ield Stage Road to the horse trail, and out through the UCR property); with respect to the recommendation to remove the townhomes from Planning Area No. 26, replacing these units with s~ngle-fam~ly dw~elhngs, noted that the applicant has a contract for the development of townhomes; in response to the Planning Commission s confusion w~th respect to the map be ng referenced, noted that he was using the Specific Plan map; w~th respect to the recommendabon to revise the apartment site and to instead designate this area as a townhomes ~area, c anfled that the applicant has been in contact with an apartment company in San Diego regarding the development of this area noted the apphcant s sh~fbng of the townhomes/courtyard concept to Planning Area Nos. 13 and 30; and with respect to the buffering issue on the panhandle, relayed the re-a gnment of Murr eta Hot Springs Road, the shift and loss of 30 un,ts ~n th~s area, nobng the current plan of the Tentabve Map, adws~ng that the applicant is proposing additional vegetation for screening. For informational purposes, Commissioner Telesio noted that the Final EIR map (received by the Planning Commission at the hearing to,night) was not consistent with the map being referenced. In response, Mr. Everett advised that the Final EIR map could be in error with respect to various land uses, nobng that the referenced revisions would cause no significant impacts, relaying that the lanU use was simply shifted between planning areas. Continuing his presentation, Mr. Everett noted alternate points of disagreement between staff and the applicant (as outlined in the supplemental agenda material denoting the 40 points of disagreement) highlighting the issues related tb Development Agreement Fee Credits, Open Space ~ssues Land Use changes, the Fire Stabon and F~re truck provisions, the funding of the temporary Fire Station, thb 5-minute emergency response time related to the temporary Fire Station and the phasel in which this station would be built, the timing of the development of secondary accesS, the applicant's desire to contribute the project's fair share for off-site improvements in relation to phasing, and for these payments to be utilized on the Eastern Bypass SyStem, the applicant's desire to have the option to gate certain portions of the project, the applicant's desire to m t the paseos in the project, for safety reasons, the applicant'slopposition to develop a horse trail where the Park and Ride facility would be located, tr~e applica,nrs oppos~bon to developing private recreation in the panhandle area, thelapplicant s opposition to shifting the buffering from Planning Area No. 28 to the west side of Planning Area No. 12 (noting the road the applicant would be constructing in this area! and the willingness to add a block wall), the applicant's opposition to develop a pede§trian trail on the south side of the Panhandle, noting the lack of access in this area, th~ apphcant s desire to limit the contact between pedestrians, bicycles, and horses, ergo oppos'ng the horse trad connections, the apphcant s pos~t~on that placement of the LDZs on major roads shou d be limited, and the applicant's request for attached sidewalks on local streets. The Planninq Commission responds to the applicant's presentation, as follows: For the record, Commissioner Olhasso noted her reviewI of the joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting as well as the Ad hoc Committee meeting; elayed concern w~th respect to the legal standing, advising that while she respected the efforts expended by the appl'cant and staff, she was uncomfortable regarding the inconsistencies between the Final EIR Specific Plan doc~uments and the lack of staff R: PlanComrn/minutes/081501 1 2 review; noted the importance of adherence to accurate 'eporting, and public disclosure; advised that while the Planning Commission could hear comments regarding this item, her concern was based on the outcome of the entire issue. Commissioner Mathewson queried the applicant as to w~hether it was his opinion that at this point sufficient information has been provided, that !he issues have been addressed satisfactorily, and that this project was prepared to be pr. esented to the Planning Commission for action. In response, Mr. Everett relayed!that every issue has not been addressed, concurnng w~th staff ~n th~s regard, noting the apphcant s desire for the Plann ng Comm ss on s nput adv sed that n past d~scuss~ons the app ~cant has agreed with the City Manager and staff that if there was an item]that both entities agreed to disagree on, that staff would impose conditions, and thelapplicant would express disagreement of these conditions (clarifying that this constitutes a number of major issues) as the project went forward, and allow the City ~ouncil to vote on these issues, and the applicant would accept its determination, or move the project on. Commissioner Mathewson questioned Mr. Everett as toiwhether the applicant was of the opinion that this was a good planning process that was being engaged, noting that there were a significant amount of outstanding ~ssues, adws~ng that in his opinion it was not equitable for the applicant, the staff, the Planning Comrfiission, the City Council, or the pubhc to engage ~n d~scuss~on of these numerous qu~te detaded ~ssues ~n th~s type of forum. In response, Mr. Everett relayed that the applicant would, have preferred Planning Commission input at an earlier date, providing additional information regarding the process of the project up to this point; clarified that it wa~ at a later point in which there were Subcommittee meetings by which the Land Uses have been revised continually, due to implementing recommendations either by the Subcommittee or by staff, ergo the changes in the documents. For Commissioner Mathewson, Assistant City Attorney E;urley relayed that in order for the Planning Commission to move the project forward, tl~e Commission would need to find that a complete set of information has been present~d; noted the layers of entitlements involved (i.e., the Specific Plan, the DA, and alternate data); advised that in order for staff to relay a recommendation to the Plannin~ Commission, it was necessary for staff to opin that there was an adequate amount of fix, ed information; provided additional information regarding the Specific Plan which is an envisioned plan of the desired plan, architectural, and infrastructure considerations, and the blueprint for the land; noted that conditions, mitigation, and implementation measures are derived from that document; confirmed that this particular document (!he Specific Plan) was still in flux, reiterating that the applicant, as well as the staff do 'not have an identifiable final Specific Plan, noting that this plan would be the headstope for th~s project moving forward. Relaying that due to the uncertainties regarding the SpeCific Plan that there was no staff recommendation, and that additionally there were ~ncons~stenc~es between the EIR and the Specific Plan, and no final Specific Plan, Commissioner Mathewson queried the purpose of holding a public hearing regarding a document in such a state of flux, noting that the community will be commenting on a plan which Will change significantly. In response, Mr. Everett noted that it was his understanding there would be two hearings, clarifying that the applicant did not expect the iPlanning Commission to take action on the project at this time. Chairman Chiniaeff queried whether the Specific Plan (,Which was Document No. 4), which was received by the Planning Commission, on A~gust 2nd, was the plan the applicant desired to implement. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Everett noted that there have been some modifications to that document based on the meetings v{,ith staff, noting the desire to concentrate on the Land Use Plan which has been rew~ed, and to obtain input from the Planning Commission and the City Council regarding this document, advising that subsequently the applicant would create the final Specific Plan based on the Land Use Plan. I Advising that typically the Planning Commission makes ~ recommendation to the City Council regarding a Specific Plan, Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the Planning Commission was not in a position to make a determination at this time without a fixed plan to evaluate. Mr. Everett confirmed the desire of the applicant to implbment the current Land Use Plan, noting the submittal of a proposal to front the cost 'of $35.8 million of infrastructure for this plan. Chairman Chiniaeff noted the inconsistencies, relaying the applicant's expressed desire to construct townhomes ~n areas where the plan denotes s~ngle-fam~ly detached homes, clarifying the confusion in understanding the applicant's idesired plan based on the documents the applicant has provided. While confirming that the latest Land Use Plan that the Planning Commission had received was the document the applicant desired to hav,e evaluated, Mr. Everett noted that the recent Development Guidelines will be modifiedl advising that additionally all the Design Guidelines have not been included in the document due to the time restraints; and recommended that there be focus on the Land Use iPlan, and that a subsequent meeting could be held regarding design elements. Due to the fast-track schedule this project has been on, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that both she and the applicant concurred that ~11 the documents were not ready for evaluation, noting that at this point the Planning Commission should focus on this Land Use Plan, and that subsequently the Planning Commission s recommendat ons would be forwarded to the City Council where there may~ be further recommendations, and finally the document would reflect all the recommen,dations which are heard and agreed upon; clarified that it was the applicant's desire that the Planning Commission provide direction with respect to the Land Use Plan; for 6ommissioner Olhasso, noted that the process would be as follows: that Planmng Commission would comment on the Land Use Plan, the applicant would determine whether t,o implement the recommended changes, and subsequently move the project forward to !he City Council where the final evaluation of the Land Use Plan would be made. Commenting on the scope of the work to still be complet~ed on this project, Commissioner Telesio queried the time schedule the project was on. R: PlanComnYminules/081501 14 Providing clarification, Deputy City Manager Thornhill re,layed the complexity of this process, noting that despite the assiduous efforts of the ]applicant and staff, this project plan being presented was not deemed complete; concumng w~th prewous comments, adwsed that staff would not be able to prowde Conditions of Approval to the Planning Commission by next week, reiterating that there were still numerous outstanding issues; relayed that it would be staff's desire for the Planning Commission to provide direction with respect to the questions raised during the staff repo, rt; concurred that the Planning Commission could not address the 40 items of dispute that the applicant presented, advising that staff could review those issues with the applicant; and noted the desire to obtain input regarding the land use issues; and concurred with Chairman Chiniaeff that it would be helpful to hear the public comments. For Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy City Manager Thornhill concurred that this project's outstanding issues could not be addressed in a week's time. Commissioner Mathewson advised that good planning i~ a timely process, recommending that there be thoughtful, thorough planm~ng; and adwsed that the public will be commenting on a plan that is changing. For informational purposes, Mr. Kent Norton, representing the applicant, apologized for any confusion regarding the EIR, clarifying that Figure No. 1 (the Land Use Plan) in the Final EIR was a previous version, noting that the Land U, se Plan within the Specific Plan Document is the correct Land Use Plan, advising that all the analysis in the Final EIR matches that Land Use Plan. Noting the d~scomfort of the Planmng Commission regarding th~s planmng process, Commissioner Teles~o relayed the lack of confidence that th~s plan ~s the actual final plan the applicant desires to implement; concurred with Commissioner Mathewson's comments that to hear public comment at this point would be considering comments regarding a plan which would most likely be changing. Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the public comments wou'ld be helpful for consideration in the development of the final plan. Noting that public comments were a vital part of the process, Commissioner Mathewson clarified that he would not desire the applicant to be of thee understanding that s~nce public comments were being considered that the previo~Js fast-track schedule would be able to be met. ' In order to inform the public, Mr. Richard Ashby relayed that this plan was started years ago, noting that the Open Space that was given to the Ciounty has been the most significant recent change; advised that this project had p~rev~ously been scheduled to come before the Planning Commission in July of 1999; (Jlarified that the plan presented was the one the applicant desired to develop, but that recommendations by the Subcommittee and staff were being ~mplemented, thereby the documents were being rev seal relayed the expense to the applicant due to th~s 5-year p ann~ng process which was stopped (in his opinion) due to the November etectibn a couple years ago; noted that Deputy City Manager Thornhill had advised the appiicant that the Planning Corem'ss'on would not be pleased w th the 'nformation ~resented, op~n~ng that appeared that Deputy City Manager Thornhill instigated this reaction; relayed that it was R: PlanComm/minutes/081501 15 the applicant's desire to obtain the Planning Commission's comments regarding the plan in order to determine whether to implement those recommendations, advising that the Subcommittee recommended deleting the townhomes ~n the area the applicant proposes, noting that it was his desire to hear the Planning Commission's remarks regarding the townhomes element clarified that he did r~ot desire to have this project impeded again due to this year's election; and reiterated that it was his desire to hear the public's and Planning Commission's comments in orderito ~mplement necessary changes into the plan. The Plannin,q Commission heard the public comments at this time, as follows: Mr. Rod Hanway, 43529 Ridge Park Drive, representing, the Garret Group/Redhawk Communities, relayed his support of the project, noting t, hat this project was an appropriate continuation of development for this area of]Temecula; specified the items that still needed to be addressed, as follows: access, circulation, and financial issues; relayed two corrections, as follows: 1 ) per Mr. Everett's comments, noted that in the first phase there will be 451 Jots developed, ranging in size f,rom 4,000-6,000 square feet, and 2) with respect to the landscaping of the forty-foot (40') strip adjacent to Murrieta Hot Springs Road, noted that this road was currently under ~onstruction, and that as part of that particular project, the developer was required to ins!ail all the median and parkway landscaping on Murrieta Hot Springs Road, advised tha~ the forty-foot (40') strip was intended to be an Open Space zone, but that due to thelsloping will not be filled in until the Roripaugh Ranch Project was graded, and that subsequently the strip would be landscaped; indicated that the development of the Rori,p, augh Ranch Project wou d require off-site grading easements on the forty-foot (40) strip, as well as access across the strip, clarifying that no d scussions have taken place!with respect to the access or the grading; and requested that this project be conditioned to participate financially in the improvements for the completion of Murrieta Hot Springs,' Road as a Condition of Approval, recommending that while there was an existing agreement stating such, that the project should be conditioned to back-up the agreerfient. Ms. Shirley Lassley, 32850 Vista De Oro, noted that herlconcern was regarding the buffering issues; applauded Mayor Comerchero for his ~fforts regarding attempts to reach a compromise with the developer; and thanked th developer fo~ his agreement to make changes. Mr. Mike Knowlton Mr. Ronald Knowles Mr. John Mize Mr. Hans Kernkamp Mr. Ed Picozzi Mr. Ladd Stokes Ms. Jill Stokes Mr. Joe Turgeon The following individuals were opposed to the project, a~ 39130 Pale Vista Drive 39675 Cantrell Road 32850 Vista Del Monte 30055 Liefer Road 31480 Nicolas Road 39426 Jessie Circle 39426 Jessie Circle Cantrell Road The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the reasons: proposed: representing Nicolas Valley residents representing Nicolas Valley residents ~ioject due to the following That this particular proposal was incompatible with re;spect to land use. R: PlanComm/minutes/081501 1 6 · 'Opined that the project was sub-standard. ,' Noted concern regarding the project's process, rela ing that due to the major impacts this project would have that the project needed careful planning, recommending that the developer's time demands should be considered immaterial in comparison to the need for a thorough planning process specifically due to the developer failing to meet his scheduled submittals. ¢ Challenged thetraffic study. I ,/ Relayed concern regarding water flow issues (a onglthe Santa Gertrudis Creek), noting the need for a bridge. ,' Advised that the residents had expressed concern regarding the original proposal for 677 units on the 130 acres west of Butterfield Stage'~Road in 1999 which was subsequently increased to 897 units in the project plan which was distributed in July, nobng the residents object on to the 897 un ts wh ch; was subsequently increased to 950 units in the current proposal. , ¢ Opposed the additional proposed townhomes. · 'The densities are too high. ¢ Advised that fifty-five percent (55%) of the total housing units would be located on fifteen percent (15 Yo) of the acreage west of Butterfleld Stage Road. ,,'The project lacks buffering for transition areas. ¢' Requested that 2.5-acre lots be located on the east ~nd south side of the project for buffering purposes. L · 'Pleased with the equestrian trails proposal. · -Opposed to the development of apartments, as prop sed. ¢ Advised that the neighboring residents have expressed their concerns to the developer, which have been ignored. · 'Requested that while staff, the Planning Commission,, and the City Council were considering the needs of the developer, that that consideration be balanced against the needs of the residents, advising that the developer had been negligent in meeting the needs of the surrounding community. ¢ Noted the lack of public disclosure, advising that thelpublic has not had the opportunity to review the current project plan. , · 'Queried how the recent changes (density ' tncreases)iin the plan would impact the traffic. · · 'Advised that Nicolas Road would be inadequate if constructed as a two-lane road. ,,'Relayed that the bme constraints were no excuse fof the poor planning and the lack of agreement by the applicant to implement the recommendations of the Subcommittee. · ,' Noted that the widening of Butterfield Stage Road, a~ well as the potential bridge or culvert added in this area would negatively impact hi~ property (i.e., Mr. Turgeon's), relaying that the developer ultimately advised him th,~t the City would seize his property by eminent domain for this particular project to be able to be developed, relaying a desire to be updated regarding the projec's plan. For Mr. Turgeon, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relaye¢ that the road segment of Butterrield Stage Road has been a designated 110' with slope easements which is included in the General Plan; clarified that no individual ;ould take his property if it was currently under his ownership, relaying that if his proper ¢ was required for the road construction that he would be compensated at such time as the road widening occurred; and further clarified that if right-of-way was acquired, the~ property wou d be appraised, and the project would be built ~n accordance with the General Plan road standards. In response to Mr. Turgeon's comments, Deputy DirectOr of Public Works Parks advised that the referenced area could be a 60' feet dedication O,n his properly which would be the right-of-way for his half of the roadway, clarifying that the right-of-way (with various slope easements) has been reserved along the City boundary; confirmed that he would e not~fled prior to the construchon of any roads ~nvolwng h~s property, Deputy C~ty anager Thornh II recommending that Mr. Turgeon check his hte report for the property description, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks offering to review the data with Mr. Turgeon if he brings the data to the Public Works Depa~ment. It was noted for the record that Mr. Knowlton submitted ~ letter to staff outlining concerns of various residents of the Nicolas Valley Community regarding this particular project, additionally submitting a petition (attached to the letter) inclusive of 13 signatures of Nicolas Valley residents. The PlanninR Commission relayed closin.q remarks,!as follows: Planning Commission discussion ensued regarding con!inuing this item for 60 days, three months, or continuing the matter off calendar in order to allow staff and the applicant time to address the numerous outstanding issues. In response to staff's request for recommendations regalrding the project the Planning Commission relayed the following comments at this tim(~: Commissioner Telesio noted his involvement in the project s process (i.e., serving on the Subcommittee), relaying the discussions regarding the developer's financial concerns, the restraints regarding his available options, ~nd the direction from the applicant that this project had to be before the City Cour~cil by August 28th, or the project's process in the City would be completely halted;! and queried whether the necessary continuation of this item would be acceptable to the applicant, or whether the project process would halt. In response, Mr. Ashby relayed that it was his understan,ding that the City Council took unanimous action directing the Planning Commission to hold two, or three meetings between now and August 28th (a 13-day period) in an attempt to solve the issues at hand, confirming that the applicant would lose an important option at the end of September or the beginning of October (noting that City ~taff'has copies of the data regarding the option); clarified that after recommendatior~s were received that the applicant would determine whether, or not, to implementIchanges, and the City Council would make the final determination; and confirmed that a~ 60-day continuation would not be acceptable. With the information currently provided by the applicant, Deputy City Manager Thornh II advised that under the presented circumstances it wouldI be impossible to have this project ready for presentation to the City Council by Aug,ust 28~h, clarifying that the commitment was to make every effort to have this project before the City Council on the 28th of August provided that all parties met their timeframes; noted that deadlines were not met, and that there were revisions made to the project plan as recent as today, and emphasizing the efforts of staff regarding this project, reiterated that this project would not be ready for the City Council on August 28th. R: PlanComm/minules/081501 18 in light of the applicant's comments, Commissioner Maithewson recommended making a motion to deny the project. For clarification, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed t ~at there were no conditions or resolutions associated with the project, noting that the roject could not be recommended for denial or approval at this point. Chairman Chiniaeff advised that it was his opinion thal it was the Planning Commission's charge to review projects, and then make; a recommendation to the City Council, advising that the Planning Commission did not have enough information to make a recommendation at this time, reiterating that theI Final EIR was received by the Planning Commission at tonight's hearing; with respect to the recommendations which were requested, noted his concurrence with the need fo~' buffers; recommended that the core area be relocated to the intersection of Butterfieid Stage Road, and the Loop Road, inside the project, additionally recommending that the p~oject densities be lower near the outer edges of the project; recommended that there be ~larification as to whether the applicant intended to develop single-family detached or ~ttached units, advising that the pictures presented were not related to the DevelopmentlGuidelines; noted the problems with Open Space areas, querying whether the land has been given to the County yet for Open Space; and opined that the multi-family units were~ not appropriate at the edge of the community. Offering clarification, Commissioner Olhasso noted thalt she would not negotiate a Development Agreement from the dais, advising that thi~ document should be worked out at the staff level and then brought to the Planning Commission and the City Council; with respect to land use, concurred that the multi-family ~rea was inappropriate in the proposed location; relayed that the school site issue needed to be addressed; relayed appreciation for the Open Space proposed; noted her discomfort regarding the lack of recreational facilities; clarified that the Design Gu~dehnes, would need to be of the same quality as the Harveston Project, advising that the bar could not be lowered for this project; and relayed that the horse trails would be an asset to the project, noting that the trails had worked well on the MWD easement in the Cha~rdonnay Hills Project. / Commissioner Telesio noted that issues needed to be laddressed on the west side of the project, specifying that the commercial zone may ne~d to be relocated, and the school site matter needed to be addressed; with respectlto the horse trails, advised that to the best of his recollection the Subcommittee had not requested that the trails traverse through the preserve area, concurring with Project Plant'er Naaseh that the recommendation had been to provide a connection fromiSanta Gertrudis Creek to the UCR property; reiterated the concern regarding bufferin~ on the north side of the project; a d concurred w~th Commissioner OIhasso s comments,I advising that the benchmark was the standard set for the Harveston Project, clarifying that the Planning Commission would demand quality. In terms of land use issues, Commissioner Mathewson, concurred with concerns raised by the community residents with respect to the multi-family units proposed; relayed concern regarding the proposed dens~bes, concern w th ,respect to whether a V~ age Overlay Plan was appropriate at this location (acknowledging that it had been denoted in the General Plan), and concern with the amount of Neigt~borhood Commercial proposed; noted a desire to have an overview with respect to the G~neral Plan Update, advising that this project could be modified under terms of the General Plan; relayed that since R: PlanComm/m[nules/081501 19 this is a rural area, the intensive uses placed in the mid Jle of the project were a concern; recommended that there be additional buffering on the ~outh side of the panhandle; with respect to the school site issue, advised that a pre-deter'mined alternate site needed to be located; noted a desire for curb separated sidewalks! and unique treatments in terms of street lighting on the eastern side of the project wher~ Iow density was located, recommending that the street lighting blend with the rural nature of this area; advised that inclusion of private recreational facilities was a vitallissue, noting that the Specific Plan was not consistent with the Growth Management .Pllan; recommended that the Quimby requirements be recalculated; and with respectlto the Design Guidelines, noted that the document was woefully inadequate with no mention of architectural forward elements. In response to Commission comments regarding continuing the project for 60 days, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that this would cgnstitute continuing the item to the October 17, 2001 meeting, with the caveat that if th~ project was ready for presentation at a sooner point, the item would be notice~ and brought back to the Planning Commission sooner. Chairman Chiniaeff relayed hopes that at the next hea~ing the applicant would provide all of the necessary data in order for the Planning Commission to make an educated informed decision. Concurring w~th the Planning Commission comments, D~rector of Planning Ubnoske relayed that it would be a waste of ti~e if the following items were not completed and finalized: a fixed Land Use Plan, a final DA, the resolve of the CFD, and the maps. Deputy City Manager Thornhill recommended that the Planning Commissioners, who had been appointed to the Subcommittee, attend as many meetings as possible. Commissioner Olhasso requesting that once again the ~eetings be taped in order for the Planning Commissioners to be able to review the discussions. · In response to the Planning Commission recommendati,ons, Mr. Everett relayed that the applicant could come back next week with a new Land Use Plan, relaying the desire to negotiate with the Planning Commission, adws~ng that ~tlwas the apphcant s desire to obtain Planning Commission input rather than ho ding Sbbcommittee meetings. For Mr. Ashby, Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that it was within the Planning Commission's prerogative to determine how its agenda items and meetings are managed, advising that the Planning Comm ss on could ~continue this item if that was its desire. Ch In response to Mr. Ashby, Chairman iniaeff noted that the Planning Commiss on needed additional information regarding the project ' to make ~ts determination, wh ch would take time; provided assurance that if the project w~as thoroughly ready prior to the 60-day continuation that it could be brought to the Planning Commission at an earlier date. t' ' ' MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to con ~nue th~s ~tem to the October 17, 2001 meeting, with the caveat that if the project plan was ready at an earlier date, the matter would be noticed and come back to the Planning ;C. ommission earlier. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso. (Ultimately this motion passed; see page 21 .) R: PlanComm/minu/es/081501 20 Additional discussion ensued regarding the noticing time needed if the project was thoroughly prepared to come before the Planning Commission at an earlier date. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval of the motion with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who was absent. Mar COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS A. For Commissioner Telesio, Deputy City ager Thornhill relayed that the paleontologist issue (where allegedly there was was being investigated. With respect to the Mobile Home Park on Old trucks are continually parked in the back of Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff a disgruntled employee working) Town Front Street where rental the lot, for Chairman Chiniaeff, ~as addressing the matter. C. In response to Commissioner Telesio's commgnts, Senior Planner Hogan and Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided, additional information regarding the housing development on the south side of iPauba Road (which was an early City-approved project), noting that the project ~as conditioned to install frontage improvements on Pauba Road, and relaying t~at there were approximately 20- 30 half-acre lots in this development. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT , ! A. After discussion, the Planning Commission determined to hold the January 2002 meetings on the 16~h and the 30th, making th~s determ~nabon in order for the Fire Department to be able to make plans to use t'he City Council chambers for a National Training Seminar during the month of JAnuary. ACJOURNMENT At 10:30 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next adiourned re.qular meetinq to be held on Wednesday~, August 22, 2001 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park DriVe, Temecula. Dennis W. Chiniaeff, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION October 3, 2001 Planning Application No. 01-0465 (Finding of ~ubstantial Conformance) / Prepared by: Rolfe Preisendanz, Asllsistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planmng Commission: ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0465 pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act; ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-~ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING/~PPLICATION NO. 01- 0465, A FINDING OF SUBSTANTIAL CONF~ORMANCE FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE DESIGN OFI THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CHURCH BUILDING (PLANNING APPLICATION LOCATED ON THE SOUTI~I SIDE OF PA99-0124) NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD AND WEST OF THE PROPOSED PARK SITE WITHIN PLANNING AREA ~ OF THE CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 921-009-075. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Curtis H. Lyon / Christ the Vir REPRESENTATIVE: Irwin Pancake Architects PROPOSAL: To modify the exterior desig building (Planning Applicatior e Lutheran Church ~ of the previously approved church PA99-0124) LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: South side of Nodh General K, earny Road and west of the proposed park site within Planning Area 2 of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. Commercial/Office/Detention Basin (CO) North: Low Medium Density I~esidential (LM) South: Detention Basin ~ East: Commercial/Office/Detention Basin West: Commercial/Office/Deiention Basin Professional Office (PO) R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0465 Christ the Vine Church\Staff Report.doc EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: BACKGROUND Vacant North: Single Family Residel South: Detention Basin East: Vacant West: Vacant itial The Planning Commission originally approved a Conditk ~al Use Permit/Development Plan to design, construct and operate a 15,288 square foot church facility for Christ the Vine Lutheran Church on June 7, 2000. Following that approval, the app icant submitted construction-building plans to the Community Deve opment Department for Con§istency Check. It was discovered by planning staff that the building elevations (Sheet A-5.0) ~,ere not consistent with Exhibit F as approved for PA99-0124 (Original Planning Application). T~e primary discrepancy pertains to the front elevation, which depicts a substantially different roof design than what was originally approved. Additionally, the applicant had also deleted and re-desigbed some windows and doors. The applicant has explained to staff that the discrepancies found in the plans were due to drafting errors made by the architect. Because the Planning Commissior~ was the original approval body, the applicant submitted a Planning Application to have the Planni'ng Commission consider the proposed modified building design. ANALYSIS Architecture, Color and Materials The front elevation (Exhibit F) approved with the original Pl~ nning Application (PA99-0124) shows a roof design which gives the impression ofa combi ~ation curvilinear "hip roof" and a gable end. Consequently, the approved roof designs on the, corresponding southwest elevation, northwest elevation, south elevation and north elevation(s) follow the design of a curvilinear roof on the front elevation. It is important to note that the appro~d roof design on the opposite end of the building (rear elevation) was a gable roof and was not architecturally consistent with the approved front elevation. Additionally the applicant has revised the approved plans by deleting and adding a number of windows and doors. The following is a compilation oftheselchanges: rear elevation, seven windows deleted; southwest elevation, two large arched windows and a smaller window deleted and an exterior door moved; northwest elevation, an exterior' door has been deleted; on the south elevation two arched windows and two smaller rectan~lular windows have been deleted; on the north elevation one door has been added. Although the discrepancies between the two plans are substantial, the elevations as submitted to the Building and Safety Department ' ' ~ st II pro,de a sufficient amount of architectural interest ~nd articulation to meet the requirements ofthe Developme,~t Code, the Campos Verdes pecific Plan and the City of Temecula Design Guidelines. Additionally the applicant will not alter the colors and materials as originallyproposed. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This project has been determined not to have a significapt effect on the environment and is Categorically Exempt from CEQA (Section 15301 Existing Facilities). The following criteria has been met: · The project consists of minor alterations ora previou~sly approved structure. R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0465 Christ the Vine2Church\Staff~ Report.doc / SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project has been determined by staff to be consister t with all applicable City ordinances, standards, guidelines, and policies. The project is compatible with surrounding developments in terms of design and quality and the original findings ol approval can still be made. Staff recommends approval with the original conditions ofappro~ 'al. (Attached) FINDINGS (PA99-0124) Development Plan The proposal is consistent with the land use desig'~ation and policies reflected for (SP) Specific Plan development in the City of Temecula General Plan, as we as the development standards for (CO) ' ~ Commercial Office Zone development contained in the Campos Verdes Specific Plan No. 1. The s~te ~s therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and Bensty of commercial development proposed. The project as conditioned ~s also consistent w~th other applicab e requirements of State law and local ordinance, nclud ng the Cai forn a Enwronmental Qual~tyAct (CEQA), the C~tyVVide Design Guidelines, and fire and bulld~r~g codes. J The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with arid intended to protect the health and sa ety of those working in and around the site. The ~roject has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent wit~, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the, development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Thedes~ nofthe r ' , I, 'g p opose(] improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmenta damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish o'r wildlife or their habitat. There are no fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project wdl not affect any fish, wddhfe or habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and s an m-fill s~te. The project w not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effE Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Attachments- PC Resolution - Blue Page 4 Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval for PA99-0124 Exhibits for PA01-0465 (Finding of Substantial Conf A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan Map D. Proposed Elevations F. Approved Elevations from PA99-0124 ct on wildlife resources, as defined in )rmance) - Blue Page 17 R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0465 Christ the Vine3Church\Stai Repod.doc ATTACHMENT NO. ' PC RESOLUTION NO. 2 01- APPROVING PA01-0455 SUBSTANTIAL CONFORN ~,NCE R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0465 Christ the Vine Church\Staff Report.doc 4 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING/~,PPLICATION NO. 01- 0465, A FINDING OF SUBSTANTIAL CONF;ORMANCE FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE DESIGN OFI THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CHURCH BUILDING (PLANNING APPLICATION PA99-0124) LOCATED ON THE SOUTI~I SIDE OF NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD AND WEST OF THE PROPOSED PARK SITE WITHIN PLANNING AREA ;~ OF THE CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 921-009-075. WHEREAS, Christ the Vine Lutheran Church, flied Pl?nning Application No. PA01-0465 (the 'Application"), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecu a General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed includin~ but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular eeting, considered the Application on October 3, 2001, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testif~ either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due considerat on of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the .~pplication subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; / WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMEOULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLL~OWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and reference. Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commissior makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.0' )rrect and are hereby incorporated by , in approving the Application hereby O.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for (SP) Specific Plan development in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for (CO) Commercial Office Zone development cor{tained in the Campos Verdes Specific Plan No. 1. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned ,~nd found to be physically suitable for the type and density of commercial development proposed. The project as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State lav~ and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide ~ Design Guidelines, and fire and bud ng codes. B. The overall design of the project, including the other associated site improvements, is consistent with and in1 site, building, parking, circulation and ended to protect the health and safety R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0465 Christ the Vine Church\Staff Report.doc 5 of those working in and around the site. The project has been been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, intended to ensure that the development will be constructe with the public health, safety, and welfare. C. The design of the proposed improvemen .environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably inju ~s no fish or wildlife habitat on the project site, and the pn habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and has already occurred at the site, which is a portion of a lar( individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlifl of the Fish and Game Code. reviewed and as conditioned, has uidelines, standards and regulations and function in a manner consistent is not likely to cause substantial · e fish or wildlife or their habitat. There ~ject will not affect any fish or wildlife is an in-fill site. Furthermore, grading .=r industrial park. The project will not resoumes, as defined in Section 711.2 Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The project has been found to be categorically exempt Pursuant to Section 15301 class 31 of the California Environmental QualityAct Guidelines. No further environmental review is required for the proposed project, Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Plann ng Commission hereby conditionally approves the Application, a request to modify t'he design of the previously approved conditionschurch building, that may and be incorporated deemed necessary, herein by this reference together with any and all necessary Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 3rd day of October 2001. Dennis Chinaeff, Chairperson ATTEST: [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planni~ PC Resolution No. 01-.__was duly and regularly adopted by th~ Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of ~)ctober, the Commission: Commission, do hereby certify that Planning Commission of the City of 2001, by the following vote of AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0465 Christ the Vine Church\Staff Report.doc 6 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA99-0124 CONDITIONAL. USE PERMIT/D~=VELOPMENT PLAN PA01-0465 (PLAN MODIFI( ~TION) R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0465 Christ the Vine Church\Sta Report.doc 7 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECUL,~ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA99 0124 (Conditio al Use PewnitJDevelopment Plan) PA01-0465 (Plan Modification) / Project Description: Request for a con, lditional use permit to design, construct, and operate a 15,288 square foot church, five classrooms and a garage on 3.07 vacant acres within Planmng Area 2 of tHe Campos Verdes Specific Plan DIF Category: Potentially Exempt Assessor's Parcel No: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 921-020-075 June 7, 2000 June 7, 2002 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Pn~ject 1. The applicant shall deliver to the Community Develop,ment Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of seventy- eight Dollars ($78.00) for the ' ' ' County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within sa~d forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department- Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall he void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements 2. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and I~old harmless, the Cityand any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, e~ployees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, s'et aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or a, ny agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application Iwhich action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Re, sources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applica~t of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount withlthe City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund,I without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. IShould the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agencY, or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0465 Christ the Vine Church\Staff Report.doc 8 4. 5. 6. 11. 12. All conditions shall be complied with prior to an occupancy or use allowed by this conditional use permit. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. This approval shall be used within two (2) years oflthe approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, b t The development of the premises shall su s antially conform to the approved Exhibits D (Site Plan), E (Grading Plan), F (Elevations), G (Fl,bor Plans), and H (Landscape Plan), contained on file with the Community Development IDepartment - Planning Division. / Landscaping installed for the project shall be contin, uously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the auihority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the appioved landscape plan. 'The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the rjesponsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be fully screened from public view by being p aced below the lowest level of the surrounding parapet v~ll. The colors and materials for the project shall subst~ below and with Exhibit "1" (Color and Material Board Development Department - Planning Division. Primary wall Secondary wall Window Trim and Doorframes Clay Roof Tiles ntially conform to those noted directly contained on file with the Community La Habra Stu¢ ;o X--48 Meadowbrook La Habra Stuc~:o X-64 Sequoia Dunn-Edwards123 Portola Redwood M.C.A. Clay Tile Blend 2F22 Burnt Senna M.C.A. Clay Tde Blend 2F43 Brick Red M.C.A. Clay Tle Blend RB47 Impenal Peach This approval is not applicable to Phase II of the prdject. At such time as the applicant is ready to precede with Phase II an application for a cohditional use permit and development plan, which covers the subsequent phase, must be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. The construction landscape drawings shall indicate which are screened from view per applicable City C( ~ordination and grouping of all utilities, des and guidelines. Applicant will comply with the provisions of the ad, Mitigation Monitoring Program. (Added bythe Planning pted Campos Verdes Specific Plan Commission on June 7, 2000) R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0465 Christ the VinegChUrch\Staff Report.doc Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 13. 14. 15. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 16. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City~ The applicant shall comply with the provisions of C~ apter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Hab tat Conservat on) by pay ng the appropriate fee set forth m that Ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been pa~d. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Commumty Development Department - Planning D~ws~on staff, and return one s~gned set to the Commun ty Development Department - Planning D~s~on for their files. The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E, F, G, H and !", (Site Plan, Grading Plan, Elevations, Floor Plan, Landscape Plan, and Color and Material Board) to reflect the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community ,Development Department - Planning Division staff, and shall submit five (7) full size copies, one (1) reduced 8.5"xl 1" copy of Exhibits D through H, and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy ~hotographic color prints of approved Exhibit "1" (Color and Materials Board) and of the colo,red version of approved Exhibit "F", the colored architectural elevations to the Community Development Department - Planning D v s on for the r files. All labels on the Color and Matena s Board and E evahons sha be readable on the photographic prints. Temecula Fee Schedule. 17. accompanied bythe following items: . a. Appropriate filing fee (per the C~ty of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.3~ Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigatio~ plan). Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning DiVision for approval. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit H, or as amended by these cond tons The location, number, genus, species, and container s~z~e of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped are~' for the site. The plans shall be of the Development Code (Water ~ (in accordance with the approved 18. An Administrative Development Plan application Dr signage shall be required for any signage not included on Exhibits "D" and "F", or as am~ended by these conditions. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage identified on the approved Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended bythese conditions. 19. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall I- a~e been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a conditioh acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 20. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to guarantee the maintenance of the landscape planbr~gs, in accordance with the approved R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0465 Christ the Vine Church\Staff Report.doc 10 construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be flied with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from fir{al cedificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system ha,'ve been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Planning Manager, the bond shall be released, 21. 22. The applicant must provide proof of exemption from Internal Revenue Code of 1986. If applicant fails to I: status, the Development Impact Fees associated wit Temecula. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sigr ~xes pursuant to Section 50(c)(3) of the roduce proof of non-profit organization ~ this project must be paid to the City of shall be identified by a permanently steel, beaded text or equal, displaying shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior ehd of the parking space at a minimum e~ght ~f 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the I~arking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicdous place, at each entrance to the off- street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 in~;hes, cleady and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designatedlaccessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed awa ' at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by teleph~ ~ning 909 696-3000.' 23. In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the S~rnbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 24. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with )rior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completec by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer cori'ectly shows on the site plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, i~provement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. General Requirements 25. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site fiat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 26. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the~ Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existin~g or proposed City right-of-way. 27. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous tolthe site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Perm t 28. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The giading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 29. The Developer shall post security and enter into an ag[eement guaranteeing the grading and R:\Substantiat Conformance\01-0465 Christ the Vine Church\Staff Report.doc 11 erosion control improvements in conformance with a 31icable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 30. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all e,x~st~ng or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. T~he study shall also ana yze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide spe~cific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access ease'merits necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 31. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. 32. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Departlment of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control B~oard b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water ( onservation District c. Planning Department d. Department of Public Works 33. The Developer shall comply with all constraints whiz may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlyin ~ maps related to the subject property. 34. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be slubmitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and ~pproval. 35. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of a Ipproval or slope easements for off-site work performed on adjacent properties as directed I~ythe Department of Public Works. 36. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area ,Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation Distdct by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevad~ng area drainage pfan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 37. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans hall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Direct'or of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. FIo .wline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P~ .C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. pawng. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable Cityof Temecula Standard No. 207A. c. Street lights shall be installed along the ~ublic streets adjoining the site n accordance with Ordinance 461. d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constr,ucted along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401and 402. e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. f. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top ofcurb, and fiowline grades. g. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of a ntersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0465 Christ the Vine Church\Staff Report.doc 12 h. All concentrated drainage directed toward., the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. 38. The Developer shall construct the following publi~ improvements in conformance wth applicable City Standards and subject to approval Iby the Director of the Department of Public Works. a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approache~, street lights, signing, striping, trafic signal systems, and other tralfic control devi~es as appropriate b. Storm drain facilities c. Sewer and domestic water systems d. Under grounding of proposed utility distributi ~n lines 39. All access rights, easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. 40. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered ~Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 41. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Fa, cilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. / Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 42. As deemed necessary by the Department of Publi Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Depadment of Public Works 43. All public improvements shall be constructed and c~ ~mpleted per the approved pans and City standards to the satisfaction of the D~rector of ttie Department of Public Works. 44. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any aspurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 45. All design components shall comply with applicable ~rovisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Co~es; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 46. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollu~tion. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 47. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valle~ School District shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the ~)ayment or exemption from Schoo~ Mitigation Fees. Report.doc R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0465 Christ the Vine Church\Star 13 48. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior commencement of any construction work. 49. Obtain street addressing for aH proposed buildings )rior to submittal f~r plan review. 50. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building is required. The path of travel shall meet the Cai forn a D~sabled Access Regu aborts m terms of cross slope, travel slope stripping and signage. Provide all detail~, on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 51. All building and facilities must complywith applicabh disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Rec ,Jlations effective April 1, 1998) 52. Provide van accessible parking located as close as ~ossible to the main entry 53. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power felr the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 54. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code Appendix ~9. Obtain the Division of the State Architect recommendation for the accessible restroom dimensions for toddlers from the Building Official, to implement in the building design! 55. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler systemJ 56. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered profess?onal with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 57. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedu e plumbing schemat c and mechanical plan for plan review. 58. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal, 59. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 60. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. 61. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and ny block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and ,~rmits. 62. Show all building setbacks FIRE DEPARTMENT The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Apl 'oval for this project. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referre to the Fire Pre~ntion Bureau. 63. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 84. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a m~nimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC ~ppendix II1.^ Table A-III-A-1 The developer sha provide for this project, a water syste ,m capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 400 GPM for a total fire flow of 1900 GPM with a 2 hour durat'on. 'l~e required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes ~n des gn, construcbon type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as prowded. (CFC 903.2, Appendix 65. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. A combination of on-siie and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0465 Christ the Vine Church\Staff Report.doc 14 4" x 2-21/2" outlets shallb I t d ' ' · The required fire flow shall be available from any ad, jacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (QFC 903.2 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) As r I 66. equired by the California Fire Code, when any p,ortion of the building(s) is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, on site fire hydrants are required. For this project on site lire hydrants are required. (CFC 903..'2) 67. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 fe,let. Minimum turning radius on any cul- de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.2.3 and Ord. 460) 68. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide ap, proved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 69. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Depadment vehicle acces~ roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs. GVVV. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 70. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feat to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire De~partment access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVVV with ~ minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902) 71. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have ar~ unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) 72. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed ~hall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) 73. Prior to issuance of building permits, the develope~ shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Plrevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location spac ng and minimum fire flow standards After he plans are s~gned by the local water company the onginals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC ~704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 ) 74. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) Prior 75. to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings shall display street numbers in a prominent location 0n the street side of the building. The numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for suite identification on a contrasting background. In stiip centers businesses shall post the suite address on the rear door(s). (CFC 901.4.4) 76. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9) 77. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, t~e developer shall install an fire alarm R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0465 Christ the Vin%sChUrch\Staff Report.doc system monitored by an approved Underwriters Lab~ ~ratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for appr¢ val prior to ~nstallabon. (CFC Article 10) 78. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a m~n~mum of s~x (6) feet ~n height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. The Kno~-Box shall be supervised by the alarm system. (CFC 902.4) Fire 79. All manual and electronic gates on required Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) OTHER AGENCIES 80. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated April 30, 1999 a copy of'which is attached. The fee is made payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water' D str ct by either a cashier's check or money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later date by the District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee. 81. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health transmittal da'ted April 9, 1999, a copy of which is attached, read, understand By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained n conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I m;~ 'wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Name R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0465 Christ the Vine Church\Staff Report.doc 16 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0465 Christ the Vine Church\Staff Report.doc 17 CITY OF TEMECUL~ Project Site CASE NO. - PA01-0465 EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- October 3, 2001 VICINITY MAP R:\Substantiai ConformanceS01-0465 Chdst the Vine Church\Staff Report,doc 1:$ CITY OF TEMECULA~ Project Site EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION -CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN Project Site 000000( N EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION -(PO) PROFESSIONAL OFFICE CASE NOS. - PA01-0465 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 3, 2001 R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0465 Christ the Vine Church\Staff Report.doc 1'9 CITY OF TEMECULAI CASE NO. - PA99-0124 EXHIBIT* F ~ APPROVED ELEVATIONS PLA~INe CO~I~SION DATE - Jun~ 7, 2000 R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0465 Christ the Vine Church\Staff Report.doc 20 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.- PA01-0465 EXHIBIT - D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 3, 2001 PROPOSED ELEVATION R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0465 Christ the Vine Church\Staff Report,doc STAFF REPORT- PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION October 3, 2001 RECOMMENDATION: 1. 2. Planning Application No. 01-0404 (Finding of Substantial Conformance) | Prepared by: Rolfe Preisendanz, As~sistant Planner rt t Planning ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0404 pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act; ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING .~PPLICATION NO. 01- 0404, A FINDING OF SUBSTANTIAL CONF,~RMANCE WITH THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED EXTERIOR COLORS AND AWNING DESIGN OF THE EXISTING PALOMAR ~;HOPPING CENTER (PLOT PLAN NO. 10739), PARCEL 4, 9, 1,'0, 11, 15 AND 16 OF PARCEL MAP 23472. GENERALLY L,OCATED WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL ~10. 921-700-004, 009, 010, 011,015 AND 016 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Jeff Jonsson / Bundy Finkei rchitects CB Richard Ellis To modify the previously apprbved exterior colors and awning design of the existing Palomar Villag, West of Margarita Road and ~ Community Commemial (CC) North: Low Medium Density I Shopping Center. arth of Rancho California Road {esidential (LM) South: High Density Residential (H) East: MargantaVdlage Specific Plan West: Low Medium Density I Community Commercial (CC) {esidential (LM) R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0404 Palomar Village Remodel\~ taff Report.doc 1 EXISTING LAND USE: Retail Shopping Center SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Residential South: Apartments East: Golf Course/Resider tial West: Residential BACKGROUND On October 24, 1988, the Riverside County Planning Commission originally approved the Palomar Village Shopping Center located on the northwest corner of I~largarita Road and Rancho California Road. The colors for the shopping center were specified in ~he conditions. On August 15, 2001 a request for a change to the exterior building colors was made to the City of Temecula Planning Department. In 1998 the owner of the center began painting the center without City approval and there was substantial opposition from the surrounding hom(~owners regarding the selection of the colors. Staff resolved this by requiring that the building be re'painted with more subtle colors. This application represents the third repainting of the center and b=ased on the prior history,staff believes it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to review this ~equest. / The approved colors for the center are: Walls Trellis Roof Accent The colors used in 1998 repaint consisted of: Walls Trellis Accent Roof The colors proposed are: Primary base color Secondary base color Additional base color Accent cupola color(s) (Stucco)#256 White and #1 White (Wood) .I Olympic Stain #911 (Metal) Sinclair GM 8293 (Paint) Sinclair CM 8293, 8151,8724 and 8285. Wood canopy structures Light Poles Wall mounted light fixtures (Stucco) White (Wood) Stain rey Dark Rose, Purple (Metal) Blue Dunn Edwards ,~DE 1047 "Forbidding" Dunn Edwards # DE 1052 "Hedgehog" Dunn Edwards #DE 1053 "Crock Full" Frazee Paint # ,7755D 'q'annery" Frazee Paint #71756N "Cockatoo Gold" Frazee Paint #8,773M" "Dauphin Gray" Dunn Edwards #DE 3141 "Next Hunte¢' Dunn Edwards ~DE 3141 "Next Hunter" Perforated metal awnings Dunn Edwards ~DE 3141 "Next Hunte¢' U-on nta review of the a licabon staffdet r I , P pp ' , e mined that tl~e co~ors proposed for the shopping center did not meet the intent and direction of the Design Guidelines because the colors were too contrast ng and varied. Upon meeting with the applicant o~ September 6, 2001, the applicants reconsidered their choice of colors and submitted a revised color rendition on September 18, 2001. R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0404 Palomar Village Remodel\St~ tff Report.doc 2 ANALYSIS The Palomar Village Shopping Center is a successful ne ghborhood commercial retail project centrally located within the City of Temecula. It is located adj~tcent to heavily landscaped residential single-family lots and provides an essential function to the su'rrounding residents. In order to assist staff in reviewing this request to change the colors of the center, it was necessary to analyze the objectives of the Design Guidelines. The City of Temecula's Design Guidelines states: The exterior building design, including roof style color, materials, architectural form and detailing, should be consistent among all bL ildings in a complex and on all elevations buildings in a complex and on all elevations of each building to ach/eve design harmony and continuity within itself. (Pa~e III-17 City-Wide Design Guidelines Commercial) In order to comply with this requirement, the applicant has c,hosen to utilize three (3) base colors (Dunn Edwards # DE 1047 "Forbidding", Dunn Edwards #DE 1052 "Hedgehog" and Dunn Edwards #DE 1053 "Crock Full") throughout the center. Ad~litionally, the applicant has chosen two (2) accent colors for the cupolas which are intermittentl, Paint # 7755 N "Cockatoo Gold" and Frazee Paint The second reference to color in the Design Guidelines st8 Material and color should be varied where apprc interest. The number of materials and colors sh contrast and accent of architectural features ant Piecemeal embellishment and frequent change~ Colors should be harmonious, however, color cc located within the center (Frazee es: priate to provide architectural )uld not exceed what is required for should generally be limited. in materials should be avoided. ntrast is encouraged to express architectural detail. Fluorescent paints and overly bright colors should be avoided. (Page 111-21 City-Wide Design Guidelines Comrfiercial) 'th' th h ' It th I' th h t In order to limit the amount of colors w~ ~n e s opp~ng car) er e app~can as c osen o propose only three (3) accent colors (Dunn Edwards # DE 1,047 Forbidding, Dunn Edwards #DE 1052 "Hedgehog" and Dunn Edwards #DE 1053 "Crock Full") which will still provide architectural interest and yet reduce a cluttered appearance of too many colors. Furthermore, the Design Guidelines describe the following: Articul ition and accent color for identity and intekest is a recommended treatment for the building entrance. Accent colors should be used carefully and be complementary to the base color or a variation of/ts hue, either weaker or stronger. The transit/on between base and accent colors should relate to changes/n building matenals or the change of building planes. Colors should generally not meet or change without some physical change or definition to the surface plane,. (Page 111-23 City-Wide Design Guidelines Commercial) thth tth I th h t' t I h h To complywi is requiremen e appican as c osen q use accen co ors, w ic complement the base color (Dunn Edwards # DE 1047 "Forbidding") and have been introduced only at the various architectural element transitions. Finally, the Design Guidelines also provides direction in relation to the awnings proposed, stating: ' ' ' f t' ' rid'l h Idb t' t dt ' Use or awnings along a row o con/nuous ou/ /n, gs sou e res nc e o awnings of the same color, form/shape and general location. R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0404 Palomar Village Remodel\Staff Report.doc 3 The applicant is proposing the same material and color br; of the canopies in the shopping center. (Perforated metal painted Dunn Edwards #DE 3141 "Next Hunter"). It should be noted that the following "out-buildings" of the center are not includ 9d in this request and that their colors remain unchanged: Burger King, California Bank Building, Wherehouse Records, Carl's Jr., Jiffy Lube n' Tune and the Shell Gas Station. ~ L ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This project has been determined not to have a significa t effect on the environment and is Categorically Exempt from CEQA (Section 15301 Existing Facilities). The following criteria has been met: · The project consists of the minor alterations ofexisti I private structures. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with all-applicable City ordinances, standards, guidelines, and policies. It is staff's opinionlthat the project is compatible with surrounding developments in terms of design and quality. recommends approval with the original conditions of approv ~1. (Attached) FINDINGS Development Plan 1. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation (CC) Community Commercial and policies reflected for the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for (CC) Community Commercial development standards contained in the City of Temecula Development Code. The site is therefore p?operly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and density of commercial development proposed. The project as conditioned' ' ' ~ s also cons stent w~th other apphcable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA), the CityWide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes. 2. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with an~l intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The ~roject has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent witt'i, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that th~ development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health~, safety and welfare. A_ttach me__.nt.~_s~' 1. PC Resolution - Blue Page 5 I Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval for PA01-0404 (Substantial Conformance) 2. Exhibits for PA01-0404 (Development Plan) ~ Blue P~age 12 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan Map D. Photographic Simulation R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0404 Palomar Village Remodel\S afl Report.doc 4 ATrACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- APPROVING PA01-040,'4 FINDING OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0404 Palomar Village Remodel\Staff Report.doc 5 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING A?PLICATION NO. 01- 0404, A FINDING OF SUBSTANTIAL CONF ,ORMANCE WITH THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED EXTERIOR CO,I. ORS AND AWNING DESIGN OF THE EXISTING PALOMAR ,SHOPPING CENTER (PLOT PLAN NO. 10739), PARCEL 4, 9, 1~0, 11, 15 AND 16 OF PARCEL MAP 23472. GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND NORTH OF R~NCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 921-700-004, 009, 010, 011,015 AND 016 WHEREAS, Bundy Finkel Architects, filed Planning Application No. PA01-0404 (the "Application"), in a manner in accord with the City of Temebula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed includin( but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular eeting, considered the Application on October 3, 2001, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescri~ ed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testih either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hea'ring and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the A~plication subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLL'OWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and c, reference. Section 2. Findin.qs. The Planning Commissior makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.0~ A. The proposal is consistent with the land )rrect and are hereby incorporated by , in approving the Application hereby 0.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: use designation (CC) Community Commercial and policies reflected for the City of Teme~ula General Plan, as well as the development standards for (CC) Community Commercial development standards contained in the C~ty of Temecula Development Code. The s~te ~s therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and density of commercial development proposed. The project as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable r ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Guidelines, and fire and building codes. B. The overall design of the project, including the ;quirements of State law and local Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0404 Palomar Village Remodel\Staff Report.doc 6 of those working in and around the site. The project has bben reviewed and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, g~u~dehnes, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The project has been found to be categorically exempt Pursuant to Section 15301 class 31 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. No further enwronmental rewew ~s required for the proposed project. - t 4 A dt Th t th '" I I ~ec ion . L;on i ions. a e ~.,ity of Temecu a Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves the Application, a request to modify t~e previously approved exterior colors and awning design of the existing Palomar Village Shopping Center, specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and ~ncorporated here~n by th~s reference together w~th any and all necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 3rd day of October 2001. Dennis Chinaeff, Chairperson ATrEST: [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 01 -__was duly and regularly adopted by thee Planning Commission of the C~ty of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of October, 2001, bythe following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0404 Palomar Village Remodel\Staff Report.doc 7 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA01-0404 FINDING OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0404 Palomar Village Remodel\St~ ~ff Report.doc 8 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPRO Planning Application No: Project Description: Case Planner Project Name: DIF Category: Assessor's Parcel No: Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT PA01-0404 (Finding Request to modify colors and awning de Shopping Center. Rolfe Preisendanz, A Palomar Village Sho! N/A 921-700-004, 009, 01( October 3, 2001 October 3, 2003 Within 1. /AL )f Substantial Conformance) :he previously approved exterior sign of the existing Palomar Village ~sistant Planner ,ping Center 011,015 AND 016 Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Pr( ect The applicant shall deliver to the Community Develop~ment Departmen - anning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of seventy- eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fe,'e, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forly-e~ght (48) hour penod the apphcant has not delivered to the Community Development Del as required above, the approval for the project grantE condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements 2. )artment - Planning Division the check shall be void by reason of failure of All applicable conditions of County Planning Commission conditions of approval for Plot plan No. 10739 shall apply. 3. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect andh~old harmless, the City and any agency or ~nstrumentahty thereof, and/or any of ~ts officers, er~ployees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, s~t aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or a, ny agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the C~ty, concerning the Planmng Apphcabon Iwh~ch acbon ~s brought w~th~n the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way ofllimitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicarit of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall e~timate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with ihe City. City may require additional / R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0404 Palomar Village9 Remodel\Slaff Report.doc deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refun¢ without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agen¢, or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit the Director may terminate the and use approva w thout further notice to the applicant. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this substantial conformance. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of Ithe approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substa'ntial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits D (Photographic Simulation) contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. The colors and materials for the project shall substa below and with Exhibit "D" (Photographic Simulation Development Department - Planning Division. Primary base color Secondary base color Additional base color Accent cupola color(s) ~tially conform to those noted directly contained on file with the Community Dunn Edward #DE 1047"Forbidding" Dunn Edwards # DE 1052 "Hedgehog" Dunn Edwards #DE 1053 "Crock Full" Frazee Paint # ~7755D 'q'annery" Frazee Paint #7~756N "Cockatoo Gold" Frazee Paint #8773M" "Dauphin Gray'' Dunn Edwards ~DE 3141 "Next Hunter" Dunn Edwards ~DE 3141 "Next Hunter" Dunn Edwards ~,DE 3141 "Next Hunter" Wood canopy structures Light Poles Wall mounted light fixtures Perforated metal awnings The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Plahning Division for their files. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 9. All design components shall comply with applicable ~rovisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codbs; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and E isabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 10. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior tc commencement of any construction work. R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0404 Palomar Village Remodel\St; ~ff Report.doc 10 By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, u~ ~derstand, and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the proper~y shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that anylchanges I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Name R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0404 Palomar Village Remodel\St~ ~ff Report.doc 11 A'I'TACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0465 Christ the Vine Church\Staff Report.doc 17 CITY OF TEMECULA i~!~ ~ Project S,te~ ~5~_~ CASI~ NO. - PA01-0404 EXHIBIT - A VICINITY MAP PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- October 3, 2001 R:\Substantial ConformanceS01-0404 Palomar Village Remodel\Staff Reporl.doc 13 CITY OFTEMECULA Project Site EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION -(CC) COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL Project Site N EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION --(CC) COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CASE NOS. - PA01-0404 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 3, 2001 R:\Substantial Conformance\01-0404 Palomar Village Remodel\Staff Report.doc 14 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: Planning C om mils~off~/ FROM: Debbie Ubnoske~,~i~ector of Planning DATE: October 3, 2001 SUBJECT: Director's Hearing Case Update Planning Director's Agenda items for August and SeptembE 2001 Date Case No. Proposal t Applicant Action / August 2, 2001 PA01-0258 Product Review for three m~odel M-A Temeku Hills Approved home plans for constructio~ on lots 1 to 85 within Tract 28482 ~vithin the Temeku Hills residential development. August 16, 2001 PA01-0247 Development Plan to desig!, Temecula Valley Approved construct, and operate a 5~910 Chamber of square foot office building. Commerce I August 23, 2001 PA98-0005 Tentative Parcel Map No. 28743 for Westside Approved the subdivision of 39.94 ac~es of Business Centre land into 13 industrial lots. August 23, 2001 PA00-0459 Request to create three (31 parcels WMII Partners LP Approved out of (2) two existing parce, ls within the underlying Parcel Map 29309. I August 23, 2001 PA01-0078 Request to create three (3) ~arcels WMII Partners LP Approved out of (1) one existing parc,el within the underlying Parcel Map 28697. R:~D IRH EAR'dVlEMO~2001 ~A ug us t 2001 .memo.doc 1 Date Case No. Proposal I Applicant Action August 23, 2001 PA01-0237 This is a request to add a !mall Flying Marlin Approved dance floor (10' X 15') andla Enterprises LLC (16.5' X 6') stage area for live entertainment at the ex~st~ng Aloha Joes Restaurant. August 23, 2001 PA01-0118 Request to add an additional paved G.W. Engineering Approved parking area at the rear of the ex st ng Rancho Ford Dealership I lontati¥o ~arcol Ma I .. ^ugust 23, 2001 P^01-0263 ^ p croa~m~ a fixcel ~ppro¥od 23 lot commercial subrhws~on on En§ineedn§ 30.14 acres. I August 30, 2001 PA01-0240 Planning Application to des, ign, Burger King Approved construct, and operate a 4,691 square foot Burger King fait food drive through restaurant. September 13, 2001 PA01-0330 Product Review applicatior for 84 Woodside Approved detached single family hen',es of Homes three model types; ranging n size from 2,057 to 2,822 square feet within Tract 24136. September 13, 2001 PA01-0332 Product Review application for 101 Woodside Approved detached single family hem,es of Homes three model types; ranging in size from 3,001 to 3,968 square'feet wth n Tract 24136-1. Attachments: 1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2 R:kDIRHEAR~MEMOX2001 kAugust 2001.memo.doc 2 ATFACHMENT NO. 1 ACTION AGENDAS R:\DIRHEAR~VlEMO\2001~August 2001.memo.doc 3 ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING~ August 2, 2001 1:3~i0 PM / TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park D~ive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of tt' public can address to the Planning Manager on items that are not listed on the Agend, a. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior P~lanner about an item no~t listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a RequesttoSpeak forrn must be filed with the Senior Planner m~nute time limit for individual speakers. before that item is heard. There is a three (3) ' ~ ' Item No. 1: Case No: Case Name: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Intended Environmental Action: Assessor's Parcel Number: Case Planner; Status: Recommendation: ACTION: P:\PLANN iNG\DIRHEAR\2001 \08-02-01 AGENDA_doc PA01-0258 Residential Product Review Application Temeku Hills Product Review M-A Temeku Hills I Royal Oaks Drive at Meadows Parkway (Margarita Village Specific Plan). Product Rev ew for three model home plans for construction on lots 1 to 85 lots within Tract 28482 within the Temeku Hills residential development. Exempt 953-035-007 & 953-060-008, 009 & 028 Michael McCoy X New Project Re-submittal: Previous DRC Date: Approval APPROVED ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING] August 16, 2001 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFI~RENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park D: ive Temecula, CA 9259( CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of t~ public can address to the Planning Manager on items that are not listed on the Agend~a. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior P~lanner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" for~ must be filed with the Senior Planner minute t~me hm~t for individual speakers. before that item is heard. There is athree(3) ' ~ ' ' ' Caseltem NO,No:l: Planning Application No . PA01 - 0247 (Development Plan) . Applicant: Temecula Valley Char~ber of Commerce Location: Located on the southe~asterly corner of Ynez Court and east of Ynez Road, Parcel 10 of PM 27714, in the City of Temecula, County of I~iverside, State of California. Proposal: Planning Application Jo design, construct, and operate a 5,910 square foot offi(Je building. Environmental Action: Not~ce of Exempbon p,er California Enwronmental QualityAct Article 19 Categorica Exemptions Section 15332 Class 32 In-f II Deve opment Pro ects. Case Planner: Rolfe Preisendanz ACTION: APPROVED P:\PLANNING',DIRHEARL2001 \08-16-0 l AGENDA..doc ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING,' August 23, 2001 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park D~ive Temecula, CA 9259d CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of th.= public can address to the Planning Manager on items that are not listed on the Agent a. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should I~e filled out and filed"~h the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a Request to Speak" for~ must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) m nute bme hm~t for individual speakers. Item No. 1: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: ACTION: Item No. 2: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: ACTION: Item No. 3: Case No: Applicant: Planning Application No. PA98-0005 (TPM28743) Westside Business Centre Located on the western most bounda~ of the City of Temecula north of the terminus of Rio Nedo and south of the, terminus of Roick Drive. (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 909-320-047) Tentative Parcel Map No. 28743 for the subdivision of 39.94 acres of land into 13 industrial lots. Mitigated Negative Declaration Thomas Thomsley, Associate Planner APPROVED Planning Application No. PA00-0459 (Tentative Parcel Map) WMil Partners LP, c/o Mr. Gary Nogl~ 2398 San Diego Ave., San Diego, CA ' North of Winchester Road, between M~ argadta Road and Roripaugh Road Request to create three (3) parcels out of two (2) existing parcels within the underlying Parcel Map 29309 Exempt per CEQA Sec. 15315 (M nor Land Divisions - Four or fewer lots.) Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner APPROVED Planning Application No. PA01-007 (Tentative Parcel Map) WMII Partners LP, c/o Mr. Gary Nogl( 2398 San Diego Ave., San Diego, CA Location: North of Winchester Road, between M~argarita Road and Roripaugh Road Proposal: Request to create three (3) parcels out of one (1) existing parcel within the underlying Parcel Map 28697. Environmental Action: Exempt per CEQA Sec. 15315 (Minor Land Divisions - Four or fewer lots.) Case Planner: Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner ACTION: APPROVED P:XPL~NNING~DIRHEARX2001 \08.23-01 AGENDA..doc I Item No. 4: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: ACTION: Item No. 5: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: ACTION: Item No. 6: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: ACTION: PA01-0237 (Minor Conditional Us .~ Permit) Flying Marlin Enterprises LLC 27497 Ynez Road, Temecu a (A oha Joes) This is a request to add a small dance floor (10' x 15') and a (16.5' x 6') stage area for live entertainment at ~he existing Aloha Joe's Restaurant· This project is exempt from CEQA rewew due to Class 1 Categorical Exemption 15301 (Existing Facilitie~ Rick Rush, Project Planner Mayra De La Torre APPROVED PA01-0118 (Minor Conditional Us G.W. Engineering 28695 Ynez Road, Temecula Request to add an additional paved Rancho Ford dealership This project is exempt from CEQA Exemption 15311 (Accessory Strucl Rick Rush Mayra De La Torre APPROVED Permit) 3arking area at the rear of the existing review due to Class 11 Categorical Jres). PA01-0263 (TPM 30208) Excel Engineering Tim Brewer, 42690 Rio Nedo, #A, Temecula, CA 92590 Front ng Marganta Road Between Nprth General Kearney and Over and on the east side of the Promenade Mai! (APN's 921-090-071,089, 092,094) A Tentative Parcel Map creating a 23 lot commercial subdivision on 30.14 a project for which an Environmental , certified (Sec. 15162 - Subsequent Jar acres. Determination of Consistency with Impact Report (EIR) was previousl, EIRs and Negative Declarations). Thomas Thornsley, Associate Plan APPROVED P:\PLANNING~DIRHEAR\2001 \08-23-01 AGENDA..doc 2 ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETIN~ August 30, 2001 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Dl[ive Temecula, CA 92591~ CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of th,e public can address to the Planning Manager on items that are not listed on the Agend~a. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior P~lanner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. t "R tt - k"f For all other agenda i ems a eques o ~pea orm mus ce i eo with the ~enior Pranner m~nute bme hm~t for individual speakers. before that item is heard. There is a three (3) ' ~ ' ' ' Item No. 1: Case No: Planning Application No. PA01-0240 (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan). ' th ' It Applicant: Burger King fast food orive rougn re~s aurant Location: Located on the north side of Highway 79 South between Margarita Road and Meadows Parkway, Parcel 2 of PM 29~431, in the City of TemecuM, County of Riverside, State of California. Proposal: Planning Application to design, construct, and operate a 4,691 square foot Burger King fast food drive through r~,staurant Environmental Action: Notice of Exemption per Ca//forn/a Environmenta/Quality Act Article 19 Categorical Exemptions Section 1533~' Class 32 In-fill Development Proiects. Case Planner: Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planne ACTION: APPROVED P:\PLANNING'xDIRHEAR\200 I\08-30-01 AGENDA-doc ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETINGI September 13, 2001 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park D~ive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning PUBLIC COMMENTS I A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of th,e public can address to the Planning Manager on items that are not listed on the Agend, a. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Sen[or P~lanner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. ,, " Planner For all other agenda tems a Request to Speak form must be filed with the Senior m~nute t~me hm~t for individual speakers. before that item is heard. There is a three (3) ' ~ ' ' ' Item No. 1: Case No: Planning Application No. PLA01-0330 (Development Plans for Product Review) I Applicant: Woodside Homes of Californii~, Inc. c/o Scott Gale Location: West of Meadows Parkway a,~d north of De Portola Road within the PalomaJPaseo del Sol Specific Plan, Planning Area No. 8 Proposal: Product Review application fcJr 84 detached single-family homes of three model types; ranging ir size from 2,057 to 2,822 square feet Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Item No. 2: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: within Tract 24136. This project is exempt from fu certification of the EIR for the Matthew Harris Approval APPROVED ther evaluation under CEQA due to the PalomaJPaseo del Sol Specific Plan. Planning Application No. P~,01-0332 (Development Plans for Product Review) ~ Woodside Homes of California Inc., c/o Scott Gale South of Montelegro Way and, East of Pio Pico Road within the Paloma/Paseo del Sol Specific Plan, Planning Area No. 8 Product Review application fo'r 101 detached single-family homes of three model types; ranging ' size from 3,001 to 3,968 square feet within Tract 24136-1. This project is exempt from f, ther evaluation under CEQA due to the certification of the EIR for the Paloma/Paseo del Sol Specific Plan. Matthew Harris Approval APPROVED P:XPLgt NNING~DIRHEAR~2001 \09-13-01 AGENDA_doc